Repository navigation
Narrow C2's no-name-reading clause to a word read as a name (#641) - #644
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rules.md#C2 said a part consumed wholly as suffixes raises no report
about reading a word of it as a name, yet the part after a suffix comma
reports each word its opening credential takes ("may be a name word"),
the report C1's statement promises and its `John Smith, PhD Jones`
example pins. The report stays, and C2's sentence is narrowed to what
it meant -- no report that a word was READ AS a name; C1's report on a
word read as a suffix that may be a name word is the part's own, with
C1's flip and C2's flag. Text only: no reading or report moves; the
code comment quoting the sentence follows it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #644 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.02% 99.02%
=======================================
Files 46 46
Lines 4513 4513
=======================================
Hits 4469 4469
Misses 44 44 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
The per-word report is S2's ("A name word the run absorbs is reported
`suffix-or-name`"), reached by C1's credential-opening branch, not a
statement of C1's -- the entry had quoted a code comment as one. C2's
list now names the reports by their rules: C1's decision report (the
flip, or the first word after the comma), S2's report on each word a
credential reads as a suffix though it may be a name word (an absorbed
name word, a member the company decides), and C2's flag. The
disagreement dates from #603, which added the report; #613 moved it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
rules.md#C2 said that a part the parse consumes wholly as suffixes "raises no report about reading a word of it as a name", whether it is the part after a suffix comma or a part beyond the second. The part after a suffix comma does report each word its opening credential takes:
John Smith, PhD van der Bergsuffix-or-nameon 'van', 'der' and 'Berg': "follows a credential, so it reads as part of the suffix run; it may be a name word"John Smith, PhD Jonessuffix-or-name, pinned by a rules.md#C1 exampleThe report is S2's: "A name word the run absorbs is reported
suffix-or-name." C1's credential-opening branch reaches it by reading the words after the credential as that run reads them. The rule text and the code had disagreed since #603 added the report (#613 later moved it into_comma.decide), and no test held either side's wording.Decided (Derek): option (a). The report stays, and C2's sentence is narrowed to what it meant. A word behind a credential in a part the comma made postnominal is the same fork the report flags in
John Smith PhD Jones. C2 now says such a part raises no report that a word of it was read as a name, which covers a particle chained onto a name word and an acronym taken into the name. Its list of the part's own reports names each by its rule:The review measured about 1.2 million parses of suffix-comma and tail parts, and found that those are the only reports such a part carries.
Text only. No reading or report moves, and the suite and all five differential gates are unchanged. The one code comment that quoted the old sentence (
_group.py) now quotes the new one.Review
The fix commit attributes the reports to their rules (an earlier draft quoted a code comment as C1's statement) and dates the disagreement to #603.
Docs
John Smith, PhD van der Bergreport its words as possible name words, when C2 says a wholly-suffix part raises no such report? #641 entry. The ShouldJohn Smith, Jr., van der Berg Prof.read title 'Prof.' asJohn Smith, Jr., Prof.does? #636 entry's "Open: ShouldJohn Smith, Jr., abdul Dr. Smithread title 'Dr.' asJohn Smith, Jr., Berg Dr. Smithdoes? #640, ShouldJohn Smith, PhD van der Bergreport its words as possible name words, when C2 says a wholly-suffix part raises no such report? #641" line now notes both are settled.Closes #641
🤖 Generated with Claude Code